Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag the call as non-read-only but non-destructive and idempotent; the description adds the crucial consequence — the rule document is not deleted, only the link is removed — which is what an agent needs to reason safely about a mutation. Permission tiers add further disclosure beyond the annotations, though the wording 'Idempotent' merely restates idempotentHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the effect and mechanism before the required parameters and permissions. Slight redundancy in restating scope values that the enum already carries, but nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tenant_slug ambiguity is fully handled by the schema. Effect, non-destructiveness, idempotency, and per-scope permissions are all present — an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the tenant_slug multi-workspace guidance. The description only echoes the scope/owner_slug requirement already in the schema, adding no new syntax, defaults, or edge-case behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Clear the rule link for a scope') and explains the mechanism (sets the owner's rule FK to null), which separates it in practice from kb_rules_set. It never names the sibling it complements, so an agent must infer the pairing from the verb rather than being told.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives the calling shape per scope branch (scope=tenant|project|group, plus owner_slug for project/group) and states the authorization precondition per branch (admin for tenant, editor for project/group). It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of kb_rules_set when...' routing sentence.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.